10/02/2006****SEE NEW POST with MORE developments:
10/02/2006****PLOT THICKENS ****See last update:
As I’m a constituent of Rep. Mark Foley, I’ve been keeping up on this story about his alledged computer sex with a sixteen year old male page. In light of the fact that he resigned it’s obvious that the incidents took place. But there are many, many questions about this that need to be looked at.
First, I don’t condone these kinds of actions in anyway. I’m former law enforcement and even worked to help capture child predators on the internet before people even knew what that was, so I’m not defending Foley. However watching the news coverage today I have to wonder about a few things, and got to checking around.
Although not confirmed, it’s being thrown around that ABC’s primary source for the computer chats and emails is the liberal watch dog group CREW.
Significant, because while there is a story about how the GOP leadership knew of Foley’s actions for at least a year, after which he was ordered to stop contact with the teen, there reports that CREW also knew of the allegations months ago. In fact according to reports, CREW had contacted the FBI, and were waiting to go public when ABC posted the story. So the obvious question is “Why wait”? I think it’s obvious they were waiting to have the greatest effect.
It is interesting that CREW now is calling for an independent counsel to look into – not Foley – but the GOP leadership. This less than fourty-eight hours after his resignation. Pretty darn quick I would say, since the facts are still coming out. It’s almost like they had it all ….like, planned.
It’s also interesting to note that for the chat transcripts to be available for us to read they had to have been purposely logged, or in the case of text messages, saved. Again, ordinarily this is done in criminal investigations to obtain and preserve evidence. However, it’s not something one would necessarily do otherwise. Just from my observation reading one of the chats from one of the pages indicates responses that “knowleable, graphic and leading. In other words, not the “normal responses of someone who is being approached”. This is the kind of tactic we used in law enforcement when you are trying to corale these kinds of people.
So the point-blank question I have is was at some point the teen in the more graphic posted chats “coached” by someone? If so, by whom?
Again, while I do not condone his behavior – as there is no defense for it, something just doesn’t seem right about all this. Make no mistake, entrapped or not Foley should be prosecuted for his actions espeically in light of his end of the conversation, and in light of his position. Yet it does seem that there is much, much more here than meets the eye to this story and much more to come to light.
UPDATE: A DOJ friend of mine throws this wrench into the mix. He notes that in DC the age of consent is 16, which at least the cases such in the transcript where it looked consensual, legally there wouldn’t be anything to charge him with.
He’s right.
UPDATE: In light of hysterical conservatives calling for Denny’s head, Say Anything gives them a chill pill for now.
UPDATE II: I’m not alone in my suspicions. Rick Moran writes:
“My good friend and fellow American Thinker contributor Clarice Feldman left a comment that deserves to be elevated for greater readability. It is, something of an eye popper:
Reportedly the St Pete Times had the same information in August 2005 and wrote nothing about it either, apparently because the emails do not constitute illegal conduct, they are just creepy, and the boy’s parents did not wish to pursue this.
The far more damaging IM messages were released by CREW , the same “public interest” group which is representing the Wilson/Plames in their laughable suit against Cheney, et al.
When did they get the IM’s? Why did they wait until now to release them? Is there any indication the Republicans who looked into THIS MATTER had any knowledge of their(the IM’s) existence.
Pardon an old lady’s suspicions. I’ve seen this dance too many times before.
I read this morning that a Monroe, LA newspaper also had the story and didn’t run with it because there appeared to be no impropriety.
And one more point that our dimwitted lefty friends can‚Äôt seem to wrap their miniscule brains around; the incident that was brought to the attention of the Page Board is unconnected to any of the raunchy, sick emails ABC news got from, as Clarice informs us, CREW.”
Seems CREW has some explaining to do.
UPDATE III: CREW is a George Soros funded organization, but there is more:
“From 1995 to 1998, CREW‚Äôs Melanie Sloan served as minority counsel for the House Judiciary Committee under Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.). Before that, Sloan served as the nominations counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee under Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.).
According to GOP research, Mark Penn, who had been a pollster for President Clinton, and Daniel Berger, a major Democratic donor, are on CREW‚Äôs board. Spokeswoman Naomi Seligman declined several requests to reveal the membership of CREW‚Äôs board, although she confirmed that Penn and Berger are members. Last year, Berger made a $100,000 contribution to America Coming Together (ACT), a 527 group that was dedicated to defeating Bush in the presidential election, according to politicalmoneyline.com, a website that tracks fundraising.”
So we have a person who served under Clinton, and Rep. “Inpeachment” Conyers, who just “happened” to obtain emails and chats and “holding them” to just six weeks out of a midterm election where IF Democrats gain control of Congress, said Rep. Conyers has promised to impeach President Bush. More here.
Right. CREW was also instrumental behind the “get Delay” effort. More on CREW here. By Sloan’s admission, when she came on board at CREW her “mission” (before anything was known) was to “get Tom Delay”.
However, if CREW did indeed withhold evidence against Rep. Foley, for any length of time, they may have stepped over the line. In any case, I think they are going to have some explaining to do.
UPDATE IV: Mark Levin is asking questions as well.
UPDATE V: Now a former page is saying that he rang the bell five years ago.
“A Republican staff member warned congressional pages five years ago to watch out for Congressman Mark Foley, according to a former page.
Matthew Loraditch, a page in the 2001-2002 class, told ABC News he and other pages were warned about Foley by a supervisor in the House Clerk’s office.
Really? Well it’s amazing that Matthew never mentioned this warning on his message boards. Pretty small bell don’t you think?
UPDATE VI: Well, appears ole Matthew has taken his Message Board offline (this within the last hour). His message:
“Because of the current situation. I am shutting down the board until I can provide a proper statement about my part in what has been going on. I appreciate your patience.
If you are the board administrator, you can log in below and begin setting up your new board”
Prior to this you could search the archives, and you would have found NO reference to any warning about Representative Foley as I previously noted above. Apparently that is most embarrassing to this “page” who is telling ABC News that he was “warned” about Foley five years ago, YET NEVER MENTIONED ANYTHING ON HIS MESSAGE BOARD. So we are to believe that Matthew kept this information “secret” and just happened to remember it now?
Right!
This just keeps getting better. Running some checks on “Matthew” now, I’ll keep you updated. Meanwhile check out Rick Moran again with a newpost for more on other developments.
Also Tom Maguire on the case as well.
UPDATE V: After checking up on Mr. Loraditch, I found out you can find him rather easily as I traced him to his email mloraditch@yahoo.com. Apparently he’s a uber geek, trek fan, etc, with lots of posts throughout the tech-sphere.
UPDATE VI: Well now, seems the story changes at least as it appears in today’s NY Times:
“Matthew Loraditch, who worked as a page with Ms. Gallo and Mr. McDonald in 2001 and 2002, said a supervisor had once casually mentioned that Mr. Foley ‚Äúwas odd‚Äù and that he later saw sexually explicit text messages that Mr. Foley had sent to two former pages after they left the program.
But Mr. Loraditch said he was never warned by program supervisors to stay away from him. “He was friendly,” said Mr. Loraditch, who maintains a Web site for alumni and attends Towson University in Maryland. “He would talk to us more than some other members would.”
Mr. Loraditch said he still remembers the speech Mr. Foley gave to the pages in 2002. The genial lawmaker stood on the floor of the House and noted that several young pages were weeping as he spoke.
“You all have proven without a doubt that you are not only courageous Americans but wonderful young people,” Mr. Foley said on June 6, 2002. “I salute you and I thank you and I hope you will join me too in saluting everyone in the page program that has made this year a resounding, phenomenal learning experience and success for you. God bless you all.”
This much more “toned down” than the story he gave on ABC NEWS, where he was told to “watch out”. Which is it Matthew? Were you guys warned, or not?
No Response
loki
September 30th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
1It appears that there was at least one Democrat who new about it, he was from New York.
clarice
September 30th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
2The Rep leadership only had the innocuous emails from a non-minor who was no longer a page. People are deliberately conflating those with the far steamier IM’s which the Reps never had.
___
In a statement issued tonight, Hastert said they weren’t even allowed to see the emails which were described (correctly) as overly friendly but not sexual because the parents wished to protect their son’s privacy.
Macranger
September 30th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
3Clarice,
Bingo.
owl
September 30th, 2006 at 8:50 pm
4This one was in their bag of tricks for their Culture of Corruption Campaign.
It’s a given that Repubs will immediately agree to kick him out and condemn his behavior. But before loony Repubs decide to agree to all kinds of prosecutors and ‘panels’, I suggest they get the answer to that all important question….
What did the Democrats know and when did they know it?
clarice
September 30th, 2006 at 9:12 pm
5I have to correct one thing. Earlier tonight I thought I saw the IMs were on CREW’s site but couldn’t get in to see them because the site was overwhelmed, but when I could get there I only saw the Emails.
I think it obvious CREW and ABC coordinated this, but I cannot establish that ABC did not get the IMs on their own or that CREW ever had them.
clarice
September 30th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
6Here is a release from the editor of the St Pete paper:
An editor’s note from the St. Petersburg Times, the first news outlet
to
evidently receive the email exchange between Mr. Foley and a former
page
from Louisiana. It is followed by press statements from the Office of
the
Speaker.
A Note From the Editors
There still seems to be some confusion about the order of events
related to
our coverage of Rep. Mark Foley and his email exchanges with teenagers
he
met through the congressional page program. Let me try to clear this
up.
In November of last year, we were given copies of an email exchange
Foley
had with a former page from Louisiana. Other news organizations later
got
them,too. The conversation in those emails was friendly chit-chat.
Foley
asked the boy about how he had come through Hurricane Katrina and about
the
boy’s upcoming birthday. In one of those emails, Foley casually asked
the
teen to send him a “pic” of himself. Also among those emails was the
page’s
exchange with a congressional staffer in the office of Rep. Alexander,
who
had been the teen’s sponsor in the page program. The teen shared his
exchange he’d had with Foley and asked the staffer if she thought Foley
was
out of bounds.
There was nothing overtly sexual in the emails, but we assigned two
reporters to find out more. We found the Louisiana page and talked with
him.
He told us Foley’s request for a photo made him uncomfortable so he
never
responded, but both he and his parents made clear we could not use his
name
if we wrote a story. We also found another page who was willing to go
on the
record, but his experience with Foley was different. He said Foley did
send
a few emails but never said anything in them that he found
inappropriate. We
tried to find other pages but had no luck. We spoke with Rep.
Alexander, who
said the boy’s family didn’t want it pursued, and Foley, who insisted
he was
merely trying to be friendly and never wanted to make the page
uncomfortable.
So, what we had was a set of emails between Foley and a teenager, who
wouldn’t go on the record about how those emails made him feel. As we
said
in today’s paper, our policy is that we don’t make accusations against
people using unnamed sources. And given the seriousness of what would
be
implied in a story, it was critical that we have complete confidence in
our
sourcing. After much discussion among top editors at the paper, we
concluded
that the information we had on Foley last November didn’t meet our
standard
for publication. Evidently, other news organizations felt the same way.
Since that time, we revisited the question more than once, but never
learned
anything that changed our position. The Louisiana boy’s emails broke
into
the open last weekend, when a blogger got copies and posted them
online.
Later that week, on Thursday, a news blog at the website of ABC News
followed suit, with the addition of one new fact: Foley’s Democratic
opponent, Tim Mahoney, was on the record about the Louisiana boy’s
emails
and was calling for an investigation. That’s when we wrote our first
story,
for Friday’s papers.
After ABC News broke the story on its website, someone contacted ABC
and
provided a detailed email exchange between Foley and at least one other
page
that was far different from what we had seen before. This was overtly
sexual, not something Foley could dismiss as misinterpreted
friendliness.
That’s what drove Foley to resign on Friday.
I hope this helps clarify a bit about what we knew and when we knew it.
Scott Montgomery
Government & Politics Editor
###
clarice
September 30th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
7The Reps couldn’t investigate it because the kid’s parents insisted they wanted to protect his privacy. He then gave it to at least one paper (we don’t know where the others got it ) but couldn’t run it because he wouldn’t let the use his name.
And then it mysteriously shows up on a blog, at CREW and at ABC?
Got it.
clarice
October 1st, 2006 at 1:27 am
8I’ve written up something for AT.Look for it tomorrow, I may be too tired in the morning to send it around.
Carol Johnson
October 1st, 2006 at 7:37 am
9Very good, Mac…especially on that last update. Then there’s this from a commenter over at RWNH:
“Also, I‚Äôm making NO excuses for FOLEY, or Republican leadership; I‚Äôm still waiting to see who knew what, and when they knew it!
But, I find it interesting; my wife chats online, with friends, and chatrooms via IM, and I know she has no COPIES of her various IM chats!
How do you get copies of those things?
That would, actually indicate prior intent to GET Copies, correct?
Is there proof, in fact, that it WAS in fact, the same “boy” who Foley sent the emails too, as to whole was on the other end of those Chats?
Have you seen those NBC specials, where they trap all those Paedeophiles via the chatrooms, and get them to arrange meetings, and then show up?
IF those shows are correct, it’s not the chatting that is illegal, it’s the set-up and the actualy rendezvous that gets them over the line!
Is that correct?
Could it be they set Foley up for a “meet”, and he didn’t go, so they released the messages?
Just curious; it is an interesting incident.”
…..
Can you say…ENTRAPMENT???
Carol
The Strata-Sphere » Blog Archive » Did CREW Leave A Predator Free For Partisan Gain
October 1st, 2006 at 8:10 am
10[...] OK, now the Folely scandal widens yet again. First off, Folely has all the signs of a sexual predator of children and he should have been investigated day one. Quietly, but investigated. Second, the lack of action by the House leadership was negligent. I understand wanting to trust your comrades while all of you are under constant, hyped and unfair attacks (which is why gotcha journalism and politics only hides true crimes, it doesn’t bring them to light). But now Mac Ranger has learned (as well as Rick Moran at Right Wing Nut House) that a liberal group, CREW, knew of these incidents and may have also let Folely run amok so they could play a game of political gotcha. If this is true they are also guilty of hiding a crime and using a crime for political gain. I cannot stress this enough, no House seat or election cycle is worth a child’s life at the hands of a sexual predator. All of these people need to be held responsible. Folely for his criminal acts. The House leadership for their negligence, and CREW for their criminal acts of hiding the crime to gain partisan advantage. The House leadership is the only one where intentions where not to harm children, instead the failed to treat these accusations (among hundreds they get daily) seriously. CREW’s possible intentions were just as exploitative as Folely’s, if true. [...]
clarice
October 1st, 2006 at 9:02 am
11http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5907
For Enforcement
October 1st, 2006 at 9:26 am
12How do you get copies of those things?
You high light the text, press select all (or ‘copy’ ) and select ‘print’,
fairly simple, but usually no one does it unless they would have a motive.
For Enforcement
October 1st, 2006 at 9:30 am
13ENTRAPMENT??? Carol?
It would be very hard to entrap a NON pedophile in something like this.
Consider yourself, would you ever even talk that kind of subject on line, or agree to meet someone for pedophile sex. NO. So entrapment in Pedophilia I think would be hard to do.
Squeamish
October 1st, 2006 at 9:34 am
14>>>>UPDATE: A DOJ friend of mine throws this wrench into the mix. He notes that in DC the age of consent is 16, which at least the cases such in the transcript where it looked consensual, legally there wouldn’t be anything to charge him with.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ummm…You might want to read up on the “Adam Walsh Child Protection Act of 2006″
An Act
To protect children from sexual exploitation and violent crime, to prevent child abuse and child pornography, to promote Internet safety, and to honor the memory
of Adam Walsh and other child crime victims.
The bill authorizes new regional Internet Crimes Against Children Taskforces that will provide funding and training to help State and local law enforcement combat crimes involving the sexual exploitation of minors on the Internet.
( And minors are defined as anyone under 18)
In particular, you should check out the…wait for it…FOLEY Provisions.
Carol Johnson
October 1st, 2006 at 9:40 am
15FE,
“…but usually no one does it unless they would have a motive.”
BINGO!
AND add on top of that that these IMs were not recent, but from 2003(?). Now, what kind of motive would someone have to save these IMs from 3 years ago, if not to “spring” them when the timing was right? More questions…few answers. Stay tuned.
Carol
Dc
October 1st, 2006 at 10:08 am
16I think sometimes we have a short memory. This sort of hit and run coordinated media/slander/etc…is a “trademark” of the Clinton’s political machine since way back in Arkansas.
They had PIs..etc..all kinds of people who excelled in getting personal and otherwise “dirt” on people and then using it strategically (using all avenues..media..etc). And they were known to be very sleazy in their tactics. Now..NONE of that excuses Foley. Regardless of whether trying to solicit sex from 16 year old boys is legal in Washington or not…that’s NOT the kind of behavior, in my opinion, that should be condoned or accpetable for a member of congress.
Are the Dems using it? Of course they are! What do you expect them to do? They have nothing else to run on in regards to policy or etc. A seat is a seat..any way they can get it. Of course…for them..to be outraged about persons of gov being involved with personal/sexually inappropriate behavior is rather ironic post “Clinton” ..don’t you think?. As Chrissy Matthews would say….”HA!”…
Carol Johnson
October 1st, 2006 at 10:33 am
17Something else to think about, and I’m not the only one thinking this. If Foley is “gay” (alleged) and the IMs are with an ADULT on both ends…then I don’t think they have a case here. Since no one knows but ABC (who are protecting their anonymous sources I’m sure)…can you see where I’m going with this? There is something funny going on here. I mean, what kind of deniability does Foley have and how come almost everybody has jumped to the conclusion that if Foley is guilty of one he must therefore be guilty of the other. If he hasn’t “expressly” denied the allegations that he IMed “someone” about sexually explicit activity, it doesn’t convict him, just because ABC says so. Can you be taken to court or convicted on ABC’s say so. God I hope not!! YOU WILL AT SOME POINT NEED TO BE CONFRONTED BY YOUR ACCUSER and what if that accuser never materializes? Why does it need to come to that when, by implication, they get the same result…GUILTY!!! Trial by the press is a kangaroo court of the worst kind and is being used more and more.
Look, my point is, since Foley was forced out by a Republican majority paranoid not to look like they too are guilty, and everybody “assumes” Foley is guilty, then the damage is already done. Case closed…right? Now this is…THE EXACT SAME KIND OF TACTIC WAS USED AGAINST TOM DELAY, WITH THE SAME RESULT AND BY SOME OF THE SAME PEOPLE (namely CREW) Result: Delay forced out by his own party and made to look guilty even if it was NOT proven.
At this point what happens in the future to this case is relatively unimportant to certain people. They got Foley forced out under a cloud that puts ALL Republicans under the same cloud…AND THAT WAS PROBABLY THE WHOLE PLAN ANYWAY. They did it to Delay, now to Foley. Who is next?
We have arrived at a shameful time in our history when guilt by implication or association is enough to convict in the court of public opinion…and maybe that was the plan all along.
Rockefeller memo anyone?
Carol
clarice
October 1st, 2006 at 12:54 pm
18squeamish, the steamy IM’s all predate the Walsh act and there’s no indication in any event they are with minors.
Iowa Voice
October 1st, 2006 at 3:29 pm
19Foleygate: Some Quick Thoughts…
[**Scroll for updates!**]
It’s not looking too good right now for Republicans, to tell you the truth. Foley has handed Democrats an issue to beat Republicans over the head with heading into the mid-term elections and, to a certain extent, so did t…
retire05
October 1st, 2006 at 7:54 pm
20I apologize for sounding like I might be a little politically incorrect but little Matthew doesn’t strike me as the type that would hold some appeal to any of the gay men that I know. More likely, he is just a typical insecure person trying to get in on the foray to see his name in print. And the fact that he has taken down his chat room leaves one to only surmise that he has been legally advised to do so. So the plot thickens……….
If CREW withheld this information for the length of time that I think they did, and if Foley is determined to be guilty of a crime, CREW could be considered accessory to a crime and guilty themselves, of withhold evidence of a crime. With Haskert’s request of the AG to investigate this fully, it could come out that this was possible a incident that CREW withheld until such a time as to hurt the Republicans. With the election just weeks away, it is unlikely that Foley’s district will have time to replace the candidate so anyone running on the Republican ticket will have to be a write-in as in DeLay’s district. Almost a sure win for the Democrats.
Can we expect to see more of this? I think so. Republicans better gear up to fight this kind of dirty blood-sport politics.
ivehadit
October 1st, 2006 at 7:54 pm
21Sorry, the dems plans are going to backfire (and are already). The public is very wise to there tactics….let them keep at it. It only makes them look desperate.
I think the dems are doing this now because they are going to be hit HARD very soon…36 days is an eternity in politics.
And Iowa, they can only use the issue if republicans let them. One man does not a definition make. And do not forget: ALL POLITICS IS LOCAL.
retire05
October 1st, 2006 at 8:03 pm
22Denny Hasert has requested from the AG a full investigation of this incident. If the leak leads to CREW, and it is proven that CREW had the information for years but withheld it until a more “politically” opportune time, and it is determined a crime was committed, CREW could be held as an accessory to a crime, a crime in itself. This would not look good for the Dems.
While we cannot seem to eliminate the blood sport of dirty politics, I believe that most Americans don’t like it. If it were proven that this was an outright hit job on a Republican for the purpose of gaining his seat for the Democrats, it will turn American voters off and they will vote the opposite way the Dems are hoping. The only problem is that there is no time now to replace a Republican candidate in Foley’s district, and like DeLay’s district, the Republican candidate will have to be a write-in almost guaranteeing the Dems a win in that district.
Republicans better get busy. We can expect more of the same as election day nears.
Merry Whitney
October 2nd, 2006 at 1:48 am
23Carol may be right on the entrapment comment; entrapment occurs when the ‘target’ is led to some act that he/she did not initiate and, but for the suggestion/invitation or whatever, would not likely have pursued.
That’s the reason a vice cop can’t offer a hooker money — she has to initiate the transaction, or the bust is a bust.
How would we possibly know what instant messages may have been destroyed? Or who — Foley or the page — started the transition from “chatty but with no sexual content” to steamy, inappropriate messages?
If the page instigated the move to the personal and intimate, that would in fact be “entrapment.” That doesn’t let Foley off the hook, and in fact puts a “moron” stamp next to the “predator” stamp on his forehead, for walking into such a trap (especially in this political climate). But it does make a little more sense than the ‘story’ as it seems to be playing out.
Sister Toldjah » Foleygate: The Democrats’ October surprise?
October 2nd, 2006 at 6:41 am
24[...] While I’m glad Foley’s resigned as it’s very clear there was some highly inappropriate behavior going on between him and at least one page, there are other questions on this issue that pertain to more than just what he said and who he said it to – mainly, the question of the timing and who leaked the info. Was it leaked now for political purposes? It certainly sounds like it. Macsmind and Flopping Aces have two must-read posts up on this story today, that call into question not just the timing, but also the authenticity of at least one of the emails in question. [...]
Jon Swift
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:31 pm
25Mark Foley Scandal Hurts Democrats…
Although some claim that Foley’s overeager mentoring of male Congressional pages will be damaging to Republicans, I think this demonstrates why Democrat control of Congress would be such a disaster….
Morning Coffee
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:41 pm
26WASHINGTON TIMES WILL CALL FOR SPEAKER HASTERT’S RESIGNATION…
From The Drudge Report
WASHINGTON TIMES ON TUESDAY WILL CALL FOR SPEAKER HASTERT’S RESIGNATION, NEWSROOM SOURCES TELL DRUDGE… DEVELOPING… Editorial titled: ‘Resign, Mr. Speaker’: ‘House Speaker Dennis Hastert must d…
rightlinx.com » Blog Archive » Hastert Urged to Resign by The Washington Times
October 2nd, 2006 at 8:48 pm
27[...] Others blogging Hastert: Wizbang, Morning Coffee, Macsmind, [...]
Playground Politics « Obi’s Sister
October 3rd, 2006 at 1:09 pm
28[...] Other bloggers are also suspious about the timing (h/t Macsmind) – Although not confirmed, it‚Äôs being thrown around that ABC‚Äôs primary source for the computer chats and emails is the liberal watch dog group CREW. [...]
WayCurious
October 5th, 2006 at 3:52 am
29I’m sick of people complaining about what happened … and doing nothing to prevent it in the future. Rules should have existed w/Clinton’s situation and I’d like to see how each member stands on protecting the workplace – especially kids!
I DON’T want to hear a speck of politicking until legislation has been presented!
RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI
Leave a reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Top Stories in the Blogosphere News
The Commander in Chief at Work!
News
Reading List
Most Popular Posts
Macsmind – Politics, Culture and Breaking News! Copyright 2008, Macsmind is a registered trademark of Macsmind Media - BloggingPro theme by: Design Disease